Have you ever seen this?

[jgorum (Jeff Gorum, CMI)]

I did an inspection yesterday and found something i’m seeing for the first time ever–Two service panels (I think) off of one meter. As far as I can tell there is a feed from the back of the meter into the kitchen service panel, and a feed coming out below the meter to another service panel on the exterior. Is this even legal? What are the issues? Both panels have problems. Somebody give me some verbage for the report. :roll:

[rmeier2 (Robert Meier)]

Given the bare wire in the conduit body on the right side of the outdoor enclosure I would guess that there is NM cable in that conduit.

[kwood (KEVIN WOOD, CMI)]

I would say that the 50 Amp service is going to a garage and if this is 100 Amps, the NM is to an outside light source and the rest is back fed into the Main panel in the Kitchen.

[canderson5 (Cameron Anderson)]

No this is not okay. There are seven breakers which means a main disconnect must be installed(6 allowed without a main). The panels would then be subs and they would need rewired.

[kwood (KEVIN WOOD, CMI)]

Good point Cameron if indeed this all has to be shut off but my thought is the one that says 50 Amps is not the main. so there is only 6, TBS you still would need to go to two places to shut all the power off which of course is in NO way acceptable.

[canderson5 (Cameron Anderson)]

@kwood

Good point Cameron if indeed this all has to be shut off but my thought is the one that says 50 Amps is not the main. so there is only 6, TBS you still would need to go to two places to shut all the power off which of course is in NO way acceptable.

Not sure I follow. I’m counting the 50 amp as one of the seven branch circuits.

[kwood (KEVIN WOOD, CMI)]

If the 50 Amps goes to the garage and not to the house is it not considered different since it does not fall in the same 6 throw category.

[rmeier2 (Robert Meier)]

The six throw rules states that they all be grouped at the same location. What exactly are we looking at, something doesn’t make sense.

[kwood (KEVIN WOOD, CMI)]

Agreed!

[rmeier2 (Robert Meier)]

I’m guess that the missing link is that there may be conductors coming out of the back of the meter enclosure.

[canderson5 (Cameron Anderson)]

@Robert_Meier

I’m guess that the missing link is that there may be conductors coming out of the back of the meter enclosure.

Yes, he said that. These are two panels fed from the meter with no main disconnect. I thought the six breaker rule applied to all the electricity going to the house, not just at one panel.

Kevin, I see what you mean about the 50 possibly going to a separate structure. I really don’t know how the six breaker rule would apply to that situation. We need someone to look up the NEC section and post it. This is a good scenario to learn from.

[kwood (KEVIN WOOD, CMI)]

Ditto! We need Paul or the POPE

[rmeier2 (Robert Meier)]

Here’s the NEC wording for the number and grouping of service disconnects:

230.71 Maximum Number of Disconnects
(A) General. The service disconnecting means for each
service permitted by 230.2, or for each set of service entrance
conductors permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 1,
3, 4, or 5, shall consist of not more than six switches or sets
of circuit breakers, or a combination of not more than six
switches and sets of circuit breakers, mounted in a single
enclosure, in a group of separate enclosures, or in or on a
switchboard. There shall be not more than six sets of disconnects
per service grouped in any one location.
For the purpose of this section, disconnecting means installed
as part of listed equipment and used solely for the
following shall not be considered a service disconnecting
means:
(1) Power monitoring equipment
(2) Surge-protective device(s)
(3) Control circuit of the ground-fault protection system
(4) Power-operable service disconnecting means

230.72 Grouping of Disconnects
(A) General. The two to six disconnects as permitted in
230.71 shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be marked to
indicate the load served.
Exception: One of the two to six service disconnecting
means permitted in 230.71, where used only for a water
pump also intended to provide fire protection, shall be permitted
to be located remote from the other disconnecting
means. If remotely installed in accordance with this exception,
a plaque shall be posted at the location of the remaining
grouped disconnects denoting its location.
The water pump in 230.72(A), Exception, is not the fire
pump covered by the requirements of Article 695; rather, it
is a water pump used for normal water supply and also for
fire protection. This application is used in agricultural settings
and permits separation of the water pump disconnect
so it can remain operational in the event of a problem at the
location of the other service disconnecting means.
(B) Additional Service Disconnecting Means. The one or
more additional service disconnecting means for fire pumps,
emergency systems, legally required standby, or optional
standby services permitted by 230.2 shall be installed remote
from the one to six service disconnecting means for
normal service to minimize the possibility of simultaneous
interruption of supply.
Section 230.2(A) permits separate services, where necessary,
for fire pumps (with one to six disconnects) or for
emergency, legally required standby, or optional standby
systems (with one to six disconnects), in addition to the one
to six disconnects for the normal building service. Reliability
of power to important safety equipment or systems, such
as fire pumps and building emergency power systems, is enhanced
by locating the disconnecting means for such equipment
and systems at locations remote from the normal
service disconnecting means. Events including electrical
equipment failure or failure of other building systems or
structures so as to imperil the electrical equipment and inadvertent
operation of disconnecting means are concerns addressed
by this separation of service requirement. The
authority having jurisdiction is responsible for approving
what will be considered as a suitably “remote” location for
the additional service disconnecting means. Requirements in
Articles 695 and 700 as well as in other standards such as
NFPA 110, Standard for Emergency and Standby Power
Systems, contain similar requirements that are focused on a
high degree of reliability for power to safety equipment and
systems. The disconnecting means allowed for the equipment
or systems covered by 230.72(B) are in addition to the
one or more disconnecting means for the normal supply. The
separate services are required to be installed in accordance
with all the applicable requirements of Article 230 including
the identification requirement specified in 230.2(E).
(C) Access to Occupants. In a multiple-occupancy building,
each occupant shall have access to the occupant’s service
disconnecting means.
The requirement of 230.72(C) is specific to multiple-occupancy
buildings because the different units are generally independent
of each other and access to the service
disconnecting means may be precluded because of locked
doors or other physical impediments that are inherent to this
type of building. Unless electric service and maintenance are
provided by and under continuous supervision of the building
management, the occupants of a multiple-occupancy
building must have ready access to their service disconnecting
means and this feature has to be incorporated into the
building service equipment layout. Section 240.24(B) contains
a similar requirement for access to service, feeder and
branch circuit overcurrent protective devices.
Exception: In a multiple-occupancy building where electric
service and electrical maintenance are provided by the building
management and where these are under continuous building
management supervision, the service disconnecting
means supplying more than one occupancy shall be permitted

[jgorum (Jeff Gorum, CMI)]

Thanks for the input fellas. I basically wrote in the report that they need to have an electrician do a complete assessment on the system. To make things more fun, this was a 203K project!

[jwhitt (Joseph M. Whitt)]

@jgorum

Thanks for the input fellas. I basically wrote in the report that they need to have an electrician do a complete assessment on the system. To make things more fun, this was a 203K project!

You did good with your report as this service has several issues.

[jpope (Jeffrey Pope, CMI, CHI, CPI, ICC)]

@kwood

Ditto! We need Paul or the POPE

To be honest, I don’t get what’s going on here so I have stayed out.

The OP and pictures don’t give me enough information to give an accurate “guess” as to what’s going on.

If they are both actually part of the service equipment, they would have to be grouped (as previously mentioned) and would still violate the “six throw” rule - also previously mentioned.

With the information given, I think the best possible guesses have already been provided.